You seem to be ignoring the establishment's rights under the 14th Amendment. Also most intelligent people are aware of establishments that are not friendly to particular behaviors. And, perhaps service to those people go against the owner "better nature." Regarding public safety concerns, I only rolled with your comments. The Constitution was not written just to protect Negro, I******s, and Gays. It was written for the benefit of all CITIZENS of the US.
It is okay to discriminate against things that offend my sensibilities. We as humans do it all the time. I do not steal, k**l, I believe in one God, I did not c***t on my spouse even in thought (he passed away), I do not have idols of Gods in my home, I do not swear by the name of God, I loved, respected and prayed for both my parents that they should live long and happy lives, I will not go to court and lie for anyone, and finally there is nothing that my neighbor owns that I want for myself. Because someone else find it acceptable to do any of the above does not require me to. I will not obey any law that requires me to break or betray my ethics. So, if it offends my sensibilities as outlined, then yes I will be discriminatory and reject the actions or person.
The 14th Amended has been revisited many times and further the courts have interpreted the word "person" to include corporations. Therefore, they too are protected by "due process" along with being granted "equal protection."
V***l wrote:
So it's OK to allow discrimination if someone is overtly violating your delicate sensibilities?
Public safety concerns equate to religious beliefs how again?
It's a completely different story if it is widely known that a bar (for example) doesn't like a particular demographic, and you, being of that demographic and aware of their particular predilection would more than likely not patronize that bar. Allowing someone to discriminate against anyone is a against our better nature, is contrary to the love that is preached in most religions, and violates federal mandates protecting civil liberties.
Namely, it is a clear violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
So it's OK to allow discrimination if someone is o... (
show quote)
AZ passes lots of laws that the liberal states call crazy and unconstitutional among other things. Right now they have a sheriff that has a monitor watching him everyday, it has not stopped him from picking up i******s or busting their safe houses or their drug houses. AZ dances to its own music. We will see if Brewer has what it takes to sign the bill. The other things you mentioned, I do not see how they are religiously connected. For example, it is already on the books that bars can refuse to sell drinks to someone intoxicated. On the books is a law that says, if a person appears unsanitary a food establishment can refuse service. So, unless a person came in shouting things about others that would make you to think they are a bigot, then how would you know? Unless a person came in with bible in hand and starts preaching how would you know they are Christian? Jewish people are different, we rarely go to establishments that are not kosher. If two men come in and they do not show outward signs of their sexual preference, then how would you know if they are gay?
V***l wrote:
A similar bill was struck down by the Kansas senate recently. While the bill is, essentially, legalized discrimination, it was struck down because it would be extremely detrimental to business (and possibly severely damaging to e******n campaigns).
By the letter of the law, I could legally discriminate against *anyone* because of a subjective "sincerely" held religious belief. This isn't limited to homosexuals, it extends to any group I so choose, for example I could refuse service to bigots, or Christians.
Ignoring the draconian implications with this law, I doubt Arizona seriously considered the impact of legal discrimination on business.
A similar bill was struck down by the Kansas senat... (
show quote)
cant beleve wrote:
I believe you meant groping not grouping?? Auto correct??
Thank you. I could blame the computer, but I made the mistake and did not proffread my comment. Spelling was never a strong suite, I love math and science. An old computer engineer....it is not hard to spell 1 or 0. LOL
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Thank you for catching the mistake!
There are ample shops that only care about their profits that will service these individuals. The act of intercourse rarely takes place in public, however the displays of affection such as passionately kissing, inappropriate grouping of privates do occur.
I think that the laws that force employers to employment a ratio of minorities should be abolished. People should be hired due to capabilities and not the tone of their skin. Qualification, work ethic, and attendance, and so forth are few of the things that needs to be addressed. Skin tone, or lack thereof is unfair and unjust to those who are qualified. Do away with discrimination, allow store owners sell to those they want and allow hiring authorities hire the best candidate.
rumitoid wrote:
Why should Christians be forced to serve adulterers, the greedy, the envious, and so on for that matter. Perhaps a little questionnaire about other private behavior that could be considered sinful.
As noted, purchasing a product or service in a store is not practicing homosexuality.
This law is akin to Rand Paul's objection that businesses are forced not to discriminate against minorities. E******y appears to be a movable principle to him.
mwdegutis wrote:
While I agree with you we must remember that BEING a homosexual is not a sin while PRACTICING homosexuality is.
And don't forget Romans 3:23 - For EVERYONE has sinned; we all fall short of GodÂ’s glorious standard.
I do not judge people, it is not my job or any human's. I however, support the rights of establishments to have a belief system and they should not have to ignore their religion in support of laws or public opinion.
Turn the tables, sue the companies for age discrimination. You are over 50 and if you can prove they hired a less qualified person that is younger, you have a case. When you file, be sure to add in income you would have earned if you had been given equal consideration. Also, file for the anguish it has caused. Make a big deal of it, involve the news papers; even if you have to buy advertisement space, go to EOT of the company and show your evidence. Fair is fair.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2085775_file-age-discrimination-lawsuit.htmlmkewlkez wrote:
Discrimination huh? You bet it is! Ever since Obulls**t trashed the economy I've been unable to get anything that comes close to a 'regular' job. In spite of my numerous sk**ls, an excellent resume, and rock solid work ethic I have repeatedly been denied employment because of my age; 58 to be exact. As a result, I've been stuck in a dead end minimum 'temp service' job since 2011. I am in no way a r****t, but at the local 'temp service' easily 80% of the so called employees are young black guys with zero sk**ls and criminal felonies that prevent them from finding of gainful employment of any kind. When given a 'daily assignment they act as though they are being discriminated against when they get chased off the job sites for doing little or no work, constantly talking on the phone when they should be working, and complaining that they are getting 'done wrong'. When I am given an assignment they cry discrimination because a 'white guy' was sent to replace them.
Once again, either a person is going to work when assigned or screw off. Race has nothing to do with it; it's just plain laziness and whining.
Discrimination huh? You bet it is! Ever since Ob... (
show quote)
I guess I should have made my position clear. I hope that Brewer signs this into law and I further hope that it goes nationwide. No one, regardless of the business should have to cater to something that goes against their principals or their religious beliefs.
I am guilty of coping and pasting the article as it was written. Sorry if I mislead anyone.
no propaganda please wrote:
I know that the left, particularly Obama, has no respect for either Christianity or Judaism or those people who hold firm beliefs in right and wrong. However, this is the same government that allows Muslims to dress according to sharia law, and allows areas that are largely Muslim to have their own local laws that follow their religion.Apparently the same is not permitted for the majority religions in America.
I am having problems trying to determine who a particular group of people, homosexuals, cannot be discriminated against because of their behavior. There is no documented biological cause for sexual orientation, and no "gay" gene. Nor has any development problem in uturo ever been found to determine orientation. Orientation is a learned behavior. Many people have been homosexual as teenagers and become heterosexual as adults. There are even groups such as Families and Friends of EX GAYS who can help people who do not wish to behave in a homosexual manner become straight. In the mean time two percent of the population is making demands that we forget our religion so we can service them. And it is only the activists who are pushing, most homosexuals know they can find people to provide services who are happy to work for and with them.
I know that the left, particularly Obama, has no r... (
show quote)
I guess I should have made my position clear. I hope that Brewer signs this into law and I further hope that it goes nationwide. No one, regardless of the business should have to cater to something that goes against their principals or their religious beliefs.
I am guilty of coping and pasting the article as it was written. Sorry if I mislead anyone.
no propaganda please wrote:
I know that the left, particularly Obama, has no respect for either Christianity or Judaism or those people who hold firm beliefs in right and wrong. However, this is the same government that allows Muslims to dress according to sharia law, and allows areas that are largely Muslim to have their own local laws that follow their religion.Apparently the same is not permitted for the majority religions in America.
I am having problems trying to determine who a particular group of people, homosexuals, cannot be discriminated against because of their behavior. There is no documented biological cause for sexual orientation, and no "gay" gene. Nor has any development problem in uturo ever been found to determine orientation. Orientation is a learned behavior. Many people have been homosexual as teenagers and become heterosexual as adults. There are even groups such as Families and Friends of EX GAYS who can help people who do not wish to behave in a homosexual manner become straight. In the mean time two percent of the population is making demands that we forget our religion so we can service them. And it is only the activists who are pushing, most homosexuals know they can find people to provide services who are happy to work for and with them.
I know that the left, particularly Obama, has no r... (
show quote)
Hey, I guess you have not heard; all the people in jail are innocent. They were convicted because of corrupt juries, dishonest law enforcement, the law is wrong, or it was a r****t decision and they were just out to have some fun.
Ask any body that is serving time. Each one of them has an appeal going, at tax payer expense.
angery american wrote:
That's bull crap and you know it. If more people had good reliable booby traps, there would be a lot less felons in prison.....They would be in the ground. And what innocent people are you talking about? If some one is on my land without my permission he is probably up to no good, so what ever happens to him is his own fault not mine. Innocent people ob ay the law. Here's the way it works where I live. I live out in the country 6miles from town on a paved county road. When someone turns off the county road onto my property....county law, state law, and federal law ends and MY LAW takes over....If they are looking for trouble they have darn sure found it. Problem solved....And 1 more thing..Our county sheriff supports the idea that people protect their lives, AND PROPERTY. I haven't worked all my life and acquired what I have to just sit back and see it stolen or destroyed. IF the criminals don't respect the laws that protect me...I damn sure don't respect any law that protects them...
That's bull crap and you know it. If more people ... (
show quote)
I agree with you up to the point of having a gun under your pillow loaded and cocked. It could go off into the head of your significant other or it could go off and blow you away. Suggest that a bedside table would be safer for you and still in easy reach.
Billhuggins wrote:
BD your stupid belief that property rights takes a back seat to life is just plain stupid. Your kind of thinking is the reason there is so much property crime in America. Any teen devoid of respect of others should be shot. If they knew that they might get shot for doing the crime then they might not do the crime. Society lets people off for doing crimes against property; usually, not jail time at all. Just a little probation. Youth know that and they will push the envelope. I sleep with a gun under my pillow, loaded ,and hammer back; hand on gun. If anyone walks into my house (I do not lock my front door) unannounced, I will air condition them with a 44 magnum. I'll wait for the police and if they don't come before I have him loaded in the back of my PU truck. I will be headed for the National Forest with a pick and shovel. Have a nice read big boy.
BD your stupid belief that property rights takes a... (
show quote)
moonbeam wrote:
Sorry, my bad. Live Love, nah, not feelin it. Gotta get these papers done and would give just about anything to get out of doin' them. But, a student is a student with money and it is the vocation I've chosen, but I can get upset sometimes. I think I've earned that right. Just badding on myself, Sorry. Live Love...nah, still not feeling it.
No worries. I think that the title to the topic caused many to believe that this was a white on black shooting. It would be odd to see such a title for a black on white shooting. I think the creator just wanted people to react badly and be horrified that another "cherished, youthful prankster, just out for a drive and not intending any harm was shot by a r****t bigot white because they had a loaded gun."
moonbeam wrote:
I guess Obama will weigh in again with this one saying if he had another kid it would look like this dead black kid too. How many dead black kids does he have now? Live Love from the great country of Texas. 4 more papers to go and then I thing The Editing Chair is going to take a break for a while.
I do not think that Obama will claim this child, it was shot by a black man.
Old_Gringo wrote:
While I can appreciate your sentiment(s) in this story, I feel that the k*****g was unjustified, and overreacting. Perhaps he could have tried to detain them until the police arrived. I don't know, and won't try to second guess, or 'Monday morning quarterback', him.
Detain them? More than likely these nice sweet Sunday School perfect children who were out for a cheerful drive searching for an elder to help across the street, or to rescue a family from their burning home probably was in the possession of their own weapon and had he try to detained them, he would be the one in the morgue.
Dummy Boy wrote:
I would like recommend the SSA and Medicare/Medicaid as well, you are spot on...gotta get those worthless freakin' geezers off the take....
Those geezers that paid into programs need to be left alone. Let us look at these programs, in particular the money being paid to i******s for disabilities which are f**ed to young people who are faking disabilities. Then look at the life time membership bums that never paid one cent in, but has taken advantage of the programs from birth. Once the i******s, f**ers, and the trash (include Negro and White),, are off the programs there will be more than enough funds to allow the retired (of all races), who WORKED and paid into the programs to live a fairly decent life.